You can’t say the message of Obama’s December 6 speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, should have been a surprise to anyone. After all, he’s been beating the class warfare drum for much of his administration, and the idea of higher taxes on the rich to promote income redistribution is something he telegraphed as far back as the 2008 campaign, with his impromptu reaction in the famous Joe the Plumber incident. During the 2008 presidential campaign Obama also stated an interest in using the capital gains tax primarily as an instrument of “fairness” — even if a rise in the rate would cause a decline in the amount of tax taken in.

In his Kansas speech Obama repeatedly mentioned this goal of fairness while blurring or ignoring the all-important distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome as a measure of that fairness. Daniel Henninger of the WSJpointed out that the speech was the sort of thing one could easily hear in Caracas or Buenos Aires, with its populist anti-rich message:

The Kansas speech was built around one concrete policy idea: that the rich and millionaires (officially still defined as families with before-tax income above $250,000) should send him more money so he can “invest” it. This single policy, if we heard correctly, will end high unemployment, raise middle-class incomes, put children through college, make America fair and defeat countries that pollute.

Actually, there were other policy ideas as well: that banks need more regulating or they’ll cheat the middle class and the poor, and that consumers require more protection from the rapaciousness of lenders.

But it was less a speech about concrete policy proposals than one about promoting the vague and protean concept of economic “fairness” as the solution. Obama not only talked repeatedly about wanting to ensure fairness, he also warned us what “they” — his unspecified, unnamed opponents — would like to see instead. We may not know exactly who he’s taking about, but we can safely assume they’re Republicans rather than Democrats:

They want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong. I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.

In the first paragraph, Obama’s use of the phrase “stacked the deck against middle class Americans” implies that “they” have purposely discriminated against the middle class in order to cheat its members out of what is rightly theirs. In the next sentence he goes on to suggest that if “they” had their druthers, pure laissez-faire capitalism would be the order of the day.

Although eliminating all financial regulation is not what Obama’s leading Republican opponents are actually suggesting, it does set up a nice contrast with Obama’s next paragraph, which introduces the concept of fairness that is the heart of his speech. “Everyone gets a fair shot” sounds as though Obama is referring to equality of opportunity, something Republicans and conservatives favor. But “everyone does their [sic] fair share” is more potentially problematic, although it is seamlessly slipped in after the previous phrase and sounds deceptively like it.

From his speech, one would almost think that Obama is moving towards the imposition of a flat tax — after all, that would seem to make the tax rules the same for all levels of income. But of course that’s not what he’s getting at at all. To Obama, what’s “fair” for a poor person is the use of different rules (or at least different tax rates) than those for a rich person, a progressive rather than a flat tax.

By using the word “fair” or “fairness” over and over as though their meanings and the best way to achieve them are self-evident, Obama glosses over the quandary that every consideration of fairness in tax law presents. For example, is progressive taxation, which sets a higher tax rate for the rich, “fairer” because the rich can afford to pay more? And if so, then how progressive is progressive enough to satisfy the requirements of fairness? Also, is it fairer to allow the poorer segment of society to pay no income tax, or is it fairer to have its members pay something?

Or would it actually be “fairer” to have people of all income levels pay a flat tax that is the same percentage of whatever their income might be? And what about exemptions and loopholes? Is it fairer to eliminate them all, or just some, and if so which ones? How about taxing consumption rather than income? Is that too regressive a tax to be fair, even though it’s equal? And what of dividends, which are taxed twice, once at the corporate level and once at the individual level? How fair is that?

In addition, there are the myriad practical considerations that should be factored into any decision about fairness. For example, the tax rate that is set for the last dollar of a person’s taxable income (the marginal tax rate) is not the same as the rate that is actually paid (the effective tax rate), and this difference should be recognized. But later in his speech Obama purposely blurs the two by comparing higher marginal tax rates of the past (up to 90% for the highest brackets during the Eisenhower years) with lower effective tax rates of today — apples to oranges. In so doing, he also ignores the enormous tax shelters that functioned to drastically lower the effective rate during those times of sky-high marginal tax rates and to encourage investment as well.

Any honest discussion of tax rates and fairness is inevitably complex, full of wonky charts and details that make most people’s eyes glaze over, and about which liberal and conservative economists can argue nearly forever. Obama takes the easy way out by pretending that the issues have a simplicity and the answers a clarity that they lack, and that he is telling self-evident truths. But what he’s really doing is pandering to a schoolyard mentality of envy that says, “It’s not fair if other people have more stuff than I do; they must be cheating and they should pay me back” — and that government’s just the one to do it.

84 Comments, 30 Threads

1.
jd

The problem with the Obama Speech in Kansas was the same problem with every speech he’s given since he came on the scene in 2004. It was essentially the same ideas in the same format with different words.

Some time ago I put together my own synthisis of his Teleprompter Fare in what I call;

The Barak Obama Do It Yourself Speech Kit:

Preamble: this must consist of varying portions or iterations of the following; [Place in any order you choose]

“Folks are hurtin’.” [This must be said with feeling, to show caring.]

“We have to invest in the future.” [Translation; Spend Spend Spend!]

“We need a balanced approach.” [Remember, this means Tax Increases so make it sound reasonalbe.]

“My hope and expectation is that we can put country before party and get something done for the American people.”
[This is the crux of the speech, this is where it is emphasized that any disagreement is tantamount to Treason.]

[At this point it is important to have an agenda list that will consist of proposals. Use the following skeleton to introduce each of the agenda items.]

— Obama Introduce a Subject on the Agenda —

“Some would say…” [Insert here a quotation of something No One ever says.]

“let me be perfectly clear…” [This is the place for obfuscation about the subject and any position regarding the subject.]

“We cannot simply just…” [This is where you mention something that would inspire the American People if mentioned by a Republican politician, i.e. "we cannot simply just drill for all the oil we need."]

“make no mistake about…” [Here is where the Exact Opposite of any of the things which are to take place are stated.]

“I reject the false choice that some would…” [Again, reiterate quotations that No One has ever said followed by Him vs. an idiotic extrapolation of any Republican position.]

“I have ordered my team to…” [Doesn't matter what actions you fill in here, they aren't going to do it.]

— Repeat as needed for new subjects —

Then, in closing you must include a reference to the Bush Administration and “The Failed Policies of the Past.” that we cannot go back to.

Excellent, you have Obama’s boiler plate template down pat. The only thing missing is the spirt of (any) particular dead American President that fits his theme. Personally I’m hoping he’ll conjure up William Henry Harrison and start walking his dog in the rain.

Just think of the ad – “If you aspire to be Barrack Obama, you must call now. The Barrack Obama Do It Yourself Kit is only available for a short time for the low price of $29.99.”

And if you order the Barrack Obama Do It Yourself Kit within the next 24 hours, we will throw in free, yes free, Eric Holder’s blowaway cd entitled “How to Bypass the Freedom of Information Act and get away with it.”

BUT WAIT! If you order 2 Barrack Obama Do It Yourself Kits, along with Eric Holder’s cd, we will throw in a true BONUS -

Yes, I know, it is just what we all have been waiting for – Nancy Pelosi singing the ObamaCare theme song – “Are You Kidding Me?”

Obama has gone into full campaign rhetoric, no longer talking about Hope and Change, but going right back to the basics his Acorn Community Organizer days, the ones that made Michelle proud of him, He’s doing what he does best, spouting the Socialist platitudes he learned at his Mom and “Pops” Communist knees, the same mindless illogic as the OWS rabble. And the spokes-folks on the left applaud this course and believe it will win him a second term?!!!

Why aren’t the conservative candidates going after his increasingly open Socialist prose instead of bickering about their alleged qualifications?

“Why aren’t the conservative candidates going after his increasingly open Socialist prose instead of bickering about their alleged qualifications?”

No sh*t. But Newt is (see his rise in the polls). Will Romney? “Oh, no, we conservatives can’t do that. Everybody loves Barry the Man. We can’t attack him.” Maybe if they attack him, everybody will see him for what he is: an angry radical socialist who hates capitalism and America. Start with Michele Obama’s quote about how she was never proud of this country until Barry became a “legit” candidate. (Right. America has always been a hellhole it’s entire history as she and her husband draw six-figure salaries and publish books on their way to the White House. What a Lefty bigot.) Work from there.

There is no Rightist philosophy. That’s why the Left usually wins any “battle of ideas”. Of course, real life is not a battle of ideas but a battle for power in the real world. Rightism is properly characterized as being based on prejudice and stereotyping. Yes, and they both work most of the time. And they don’t need explanation or understanding to be useful. Anyone could predict that, an apple stem breaking, the apple would fall towards the earth long before Newton or Einstein explained grivity. The reason the Left always destroys the disinterested study of history is that such study would show that Rightists’ prejudices prove correct most of the time, and always over time. A good knowledge of Human Nature allowed Edmund Burke to predict the course of the French Revolution far in advance of anyone else. Romantics (who object to reality) were bamboozled completely. Although Leftists try to conflate prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping with bigotry, you ought to ask yourself one question: in reality, rather than theory, how has voting on the basis of prejudice worked? So far, we’ve had only one African-in-America candidate. Bigotry is batting 1000 there. Catholics? Al Smith was no better than Hoover, and Kennedy was a disaster (Bay of Pigs, Berlin Wall, Cuban Missile Crisis). Kerry seems to be an under-cover Jew, so he doesn’t count, but wouldn’t change the score if he did. Apply similar prejudices to any Leftist associations, fellow-travelling, front-group support, or other hints of Leftism, and you’ll vote for the right candidate almost all the time. Toleration is a moral fault. Discrimination is the hallmark of the civilized mind.

A large part of Obama’s base are the unintelligent and or undereducated who have been raised on the kind of fatuous, gimmicky, sophistry and bad speech writing that is exemplified in Obama’s Osawatomie speech. It worked for him last time.

Allston wrote: “Once, it was understood that you would have a bit of pride that everything you had was yours, because you worked hard for it.” If someone has full rights to property, then he has the right to give it away or leave it to another person. If an owner has the right to give away or bequeathe property then, by my lights, the recipient has the moral right to take possession of it as the donee or heir. It simply was not ever true that everything everyone owned came into that person’s possession due to that person’s hard work. It will not ever be true unless inheritance and gift taxes become 100%. I object to the idea that only personal accomplishment justifies ownership because belief in that socialist idea paves the way for those 100% taxes on gifts and bequests. (Truth in posting: I have inherited a little property from close family members. I did not work for it. The love and trust between my and my relatives came naturally.)

The speech fully and finaly revealed him for what he is and his agenda. He is a full out communist and he is determined to make over this country as a clone of the old Soviet Union. Command and control by a designated if not elected elite of all aspects of life.

We know him now so there is no excuse for any one making allowances for him.

Enough with trying to defend the rich. The problem isn’t how much to tax them. The problem is taxing. It’s part of the Spend-and-Tax disease of Big Government. They want to keep the discussion on “fair” taxation so they can keep spending and taxing and spending and taxing. B.S. Turn off the spigot. Start lowering taxes. Start reducing spending. Start dismantling this Big Government parasite. Keep track of Government Jobs Lost (GJL) each month and make it a leading economic indicator. The higher, the better.

Actually, Obama fails to understand that a Level Playing Field does not guarantee a Level Outcome.

If you found the flattest, most level football feild in the world, with lines measured to within 3 ten thousandths of an inch tolerance, it would not change the outcome one iota of a game between the Oakland Raiders and Kent Meridian High School.

The Oakland Raiders are going to DESTROY the High School team EVERY TIME!

And a ‘Level Playing Field’ won’t change that.

Yet, in Obama’s mind, the outcome is wrong and therefore the playing field must be somehow skewed in the Oakland Raider’s favor.

So when tax rates for the high earners were much higher, were we more socialistic than we are now?

I agree that the answers are in the tables and charts, but both Obama and most of the posters here speak in platitudes which express either “fairness” on the one hand or “what’s mine is mine.” on the other.

Historically, one can argue which is the larger change; Obama’s “socialism” or the rise of the tax protestors. My sense is that there was more of a consensus on paying even HIGHER taxes fifty years ago, even twenty years ago.

And while we are at it, who is the 51% who pay no taxes? Since a chunk of those people get into that category because of certain child and student related credits, could we say that that group is even more fluid than the allegedly fluid top 10%?

Who knows, because the discussion is usually framed in Obama’s terms described above and the equal and opposite terms of the opposition espoused at PJM.

“I am here to say they are wrong. I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.”

And everybody is better off living under socialism, right Mr. President? Obama is one of the most odious creatures to have crawled on to the face of American politics in many generations. Who would have thought that Eugene V. Debs got elected in 2008 instead of a Democratic hack from Illinois? To have a blatant socialist in the White House must have Jimmy Carter wringing his hands in sandness, wishing only that HE could gotten away with only half of what Obama has gotten away with, from the “Stimulus” bill that stimulated nothing to Obamacare. No, unless we change things in 2012, the individual will die in this country and we will be working for the collective. Trust me, 2012 will be one of the most important elections in our history. We need to get this man out of office, or else we will be finished as a nation.

“And everybody is better off living under socialism, right Mr. President?”

He is. Michelle is. His kids will be. Rahm is. David Axelrod is. All of the union thugs are. Academia is. NEA schoolteachers are. All of the politically well-connected are. That’s pretty much the significant universe for Him. Nothing else is left but the clinging rabble who will get free health care. Quit bitchin’. It’s all going to be fair and wonderful.

The most important factors in the speech are those in which He defines what He considers to be the truth, and what He considers important.

He considers it untrue that America was ever a place where anyone could make it on their own. To Him, America’s history of independent entrepreneurship is a lie. Nobody ever made it without the help of government- period. Therefore government must fill the role of not just referee, but CEO, teacher, father, and mother. In short, He is saying to the rest of us, “You are nothing without Me”.

(The extreme narcissism in this is evident, but since it’s been a hallmark of The One’s entire life, it’s not surprising.)

He goes on to demand that we send children to school to “learn to build wind-turbines and high-capacity superconductors”. Why? Are they the most efficient answer to our energy needs? According to physics, no. First off, wind turbines are inefficient (the wind doesn’t always blow), and expensive (maintenance is a serious and ongoing problem), to say nothing of being a danger to birds.

As for superconductors, all such materials operate at cryogenic temperatures, even the so-called “high-temperature” kind, which means that their application to supplying everyday electrical power requirements are quite limited, purely for maintenance and safety reasons.

(A few years ago I listened to a so-called “environmental expert” state that we didn’t need evil, dangerous nuclear power, because our new and improved power grid, run by Holy Wind and Holy Sun, would get around Ohm’s Law by using “buried superconductor lines” running down every street right alongside the water and gas lines. Yes, he thought a pipe full of liquid nitrogen running past your front door was safe and not a maintenance nightmare. The One may have been channeling this idiot.)

In short, He believes that He should make all the decisions on energy, education, etc., the same way He makes every other decision. Based on His dogmas, not on actual facts. This explains His perverted view of history; if it doesn’t support His worldview, it must be a lie.

We have a delusional narcissist in the Oval Office. Next November, let’s send Him off to the golf links. And tell Him not to come back.

Here’s the scary thing: If the current occupant of the Oval Office gets the election drubbing he so richly deserves, he can come back like a vampire and run for a second term at a later date. Let’s hope a life of wealth, leisure and golf are more appealing to him.

What’s difficult to fathom, wrap my head around is not ONE candidate cried foul 3 + years ago (heck 7 + if including his Senate run, 20 + years ago for obtaining his Editor spot, graduating MCL etc.,) and factually ran all over his nonsense. Giuliani quipped offhandedly of Uhbama’s, ‘..community organizing experience..’. Though that was pretty much the brunt of it.

I was called out for far less in my quarterly ‘EPR’s’ in the military. This dude’s laziness, unaccountability and escalated underhandedness to get higher positions were hushed or pushed aside. WTF.

This ‘intellect’ Uhbama supposedly possesses whereas we ‘plebes’ are to blindly acknowledge and constantly reminded of it.. the moron lit ALL the candles on the menorah for goodness sake!

You’d think the anti-Semitism jabs thrown at Uhbama amongst other things he’d prove them wrong. At something. In some form or manner.

His ignorance, laziness, indifference, disdain/disregard, bad handlers etc., this guy CAN’T handle the most simple, humane form of tasks.

Yet Uhbama can recite some 40 + years later an Islamic prayer with near perfection? I’m not alluding to his supposed religious beliefs (I believe he’s a agnostic with a hint of Black Liberation Theology. You can’t sit in Wright’s/your mentor’s pew for 2 + decades and NOT celebrate BLT.. jmo) but come on!

You’re almost right about Him being an agnostic. You just need to subtract the letter “a” from the front.

As my best bud (ex-Army) pointed out to me the other day (when we were sitting around parsing The One’s speech over lunch), Obama and his minions all fit the classic definition of “gnosticism”.

In Gnostic belief, the real world as shown by the five senses is a lie, an imperfect imitation of the “ideal” world which exists in theory. It bears the resemblance to this ideal world that an imperfect oil painting does to its subject. All that matters is that ideal world; all else is irrelevant.

The ultimate goal of the gnostic is to make the real (imperfect) world match the idealized (perfect) one. And since the senses lie, any time the real world falls short in spite of the gnostic’s efforts, it’s not because the effort is futile, or the theory is inaccurate; it’s because the imperfect real world is deliberately thwarting the gnostic’s drive to perfection.

Therefore, the gnostic must redouble his efforts to make the real world conform to the ideal. And anyone who isn’t “on board” is ipso facto “part of the problem”.

Incidentally, gnostics believe that the (imperfect) real world was created by a “demiurge”, a sort of middle-level entity, as opposed to a full-on deity. In Christian beliefs, these entities were most commonly identified as demonic; in fact, they were mainly adaptations of pre-Christian nature spirits, etc.

Gnosticism’s roots predate Christianity, in that its early adherents cited Aristotle as the “godfather” of the belief system, due to his belief in “ideal forms” and “absolutes”. It largely died out as a formal belief system following the rise of Islam, which in many ways superseded it. Islam also believes in a “perfect world”- Paradise, ruled by Allah, and seeks to create it here on Earth.

Most totalitarian movements have at least some gnostic elements, largely in that most insist that their goal is the “perfection of (fill in the blank)”. It is also a close match for “postmodernism”, in that postmodernists believe that there is no such thing as actual fact; only theory counts.

If you assume that The One and his cronies are at least postmodernists, if not out-and-out gnostics, their behavior becomes at least understandable. Note I said “understandable”, as opposed to actually making sense.

Seems to be the same protocol for Mother Gaia types, Neo-Cons, big government supporters, income redistribution/’spread the wealth around’ dreamers, religious fundamentalists of every stripe and other ‘Were here to save you from yourselves’ grandiose pie-in-the-sky nirvana seekers and ‘providers’.

All that’s needed is one’s undying, non-rationale self.

The Serenity Prayer, even if, ‘Lord’ is removed is poignant and a ‘cut to the chase’ account of Man’s might. The prayer’s honest, is fact and talks of the greatest strength for success. One’s self.

I’m sure you know of the late John Wooden’s, ’7 Things to Do’.

I’ve made laminates of those 7 Things on one side and John Wooden’s father’s, ‘Two Sets of Three’s’ on the other. I’ve given these to my nephew’s (and will do so with my nieces) when they reached 18.

The question I have about Obama (who does seem to fall into the utopian Platonism of an ideal world) – is his hypocrisy about ‘them’. If ‘they’ are the rich, and he denigrates the rich as greedy, hoarders, selfish, etc etc…then, how does he resolve this with his campaign dinners where an invitation costs $35,000? That’s right: $35,000. That’s an average income for a year for a LOT of people.

So, if Obama thinks that ‘they’ (the rich) should not have such money in their pockets but should have given it already to the State to distribute to those who only have 35,000 a year…then..why is he instead taking it from them for Himself???

Time and again I wonder how all of you don’t realize there will be no fair election next November. Obama will be what passes for “re-elected” in this banana republic and then we’ll be on a rocket ride to hell that will make this past 4 years look benign.

I will attempt to attach a link below but if my techno dinosaur self fails, just Google the True the Vote rally against Eric Holder in Austin, TX, this Tuesday. The NAACP has petitioned the UN to “monitor” so-called “voter suppression” in Texas and other states that have adopted photo voter ID, Constitutionally-granted poll watching, and other measures to try to stop the rising tide of voter fraud.

Foreigners coming in their blue helmets to voting locations in a town near you in November 2012.

P.S. J. Christian Adams, a former NAACP chapter president, and an ex-ACORN worker will be featured speakers. Retirees get yourselves to Austin and make our voices heard. Then go back to your home towns and support local organizations for a free and fair election in 2012. Let’s not be caught with our pants down when the 2012 voter fraud begins.

In the wonderful world of Obamaland “fairness” is defined as “whatever I say it is.” At least he is finally coming out of the closet on this. A political system based on the private property and governmental checks-and-balances does not yield a “fair” result. Therefore it is necessary that an enlightened elite who place “fairness” above all else should be vested with the total power of government.

Mr. Obama makes an elementary (and probably intentional) mistake. “Fairness” is not the same thing as “justice.” To apply a doctrine of “fairness” means giving up the rule of law. Even if, for arguments sake, fairness should be the goal of society the law will be different for every individual based on the minute details of their personal experience. This would quickly devolve into the complete abolition of personal responsibility since it would not be “fair” to hold anyone accountable for their actions since everyone can come up with a “good excuse.”

Underneath all of the class warfare rhetoric lies the perpetucal glittering dream of the progressive – Some sort of system where only “the best people”, people like themselves, will be allowed to make decisions and decide all questions on nothing more than their own elevated sense of “fairness.”

Good grief! I really like the authors on PJ but we have got to get away from the on-going analysis of Dear Leader. If you do not know that Ozero is a marxist, racialist, elitist pig by now then vote for him. For the others on here, let’s start to figure out how we can get rid of him and the left.

As another poster already said the next election will not be “fair” or honest. He may just pull enough “useful idiots” to win. And even if we do win, the left will NOT let it go and as Glen Beck has warned, there will be a revolution. Do any of you believe the left will let any kind of entitlement be cut even using their definition of cut which in our case is just slowing the rising cost of said entitlement??? Don’t think the unions and academia will NOT incite blacks to riot?? (Oh and for those who have not figured this out, the elite white left always us blacks as their muscle and built-in grievence group)

For Pete’s sake PJ writers lets figure out what to do, and not continue to discuss what he is or what he has done.

No one yet has the stomach to do what we need to do. I probably don’t either. I am reminded of my thoughts in younger years when I was learning about the Holocaust–Why didn’t the Jews flee Europe when all of the signs were there? Why would thousands of people walk meekly into the concentration camps when they outnumbered the guards? Why not fight back even though some would die?

Now I know. It’s hard to believe that something that’s been there your whole life can cease to exist. Deer in the headlights.

I’ve been saying all along- prepare for that contingency, but by no means start anything. We don’t start shooting until all attempts at peaceful resolution have been exhausted. DO NOT FIRE UNTIL FIRED UPON!

But we’re NOT doing every non-violent thing possible. We are not staging frequent, huge demonstrations. We are making it very easy for the biased media to ignore us. We are wasting what little time is left before the only means left are violent ones. We are either too lazy or too faint-hearted to get off our arses and DO something, not just talk about it.

You gotta add two other elements into the mix if you want to make any sense at all out of this: denial & complacence. Remember, most people are not focused on politics or the economic scene as they are too busy with their day-to-day routines of shuffling the kids around, working their jobs (for those who have one) & getting settled for this week’s edition of DWTS, AI or whatever mindless program du jour is scheduled. Things will have to deteriorate to a much more advanced degree to prompt most people to sit up & take notice.

What’s wrong with his Kansas speech? One word: Obama! He is in love with himself. I’m putting money on this one but he will have a tantrum in front of the cameras in 2012 when he looses the election. Who will he blame then……..Bush again? them sorry as_ republicans? Those sorry as independents who can’t make up their minds on which side of the fence is right for them today? Moochelle? His kids? I got it! Rush Limbaugh!

A lot of us “sorry as_ independents” are independent because we embrace what at least two of the founding fathers said about parties. They lead to party loyalty at the expense of what is good overall for the Republic.

There are very few Independents in the intended use of the word. I am sure that you are one of the rarities who, like Lieberman, are informed thinkers who carefully weigh many issues before making decisions. Unfortunately for you, Independents are also the ones who haven’t decided who to vote for the day before the election. Now even more clearly than in the 2008 election (when it was already clear), a Dem vote is against capitalism and for large government and wealth redistribution. A Repub vote is for stopping the rising tide of socialism in America. These should not be hard choices.

I just read Dan Henninger’s excellent WSJ analysis of Mr. Obama’s speech. In it he describes what is proving to be the most overriding theme of the Obama campaign – His contention that “they” are keeping us from attaining a land dedicated to “fairness” and that “they” are responsible for families depending of food banks, the lousy economy and dearth of new jobs. “They” or course are never defined but exist in Obamanian rhetoric as a sort of all-purpose monster-under-the-bed boogeyman useful for scaring adults.

For some reason that struck me as a faintly familiar theme. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks – Obama is really KEVIN TRUDEAU!!!!!

For those who don’t watch late-night TV let me explain – Kevin Trudeau is the King of the Con-Man Infomercial. He’s been around for a couple of decades flogging memory systems,”natural” vitamins, coral tablets, weight-loss pills and other snake-oil cons through the use of superbly designed infomercials. Along the way he’s done a couple of prison terms for mail fraud and credit card fraud. Following his last stretch in prison he switched tactics.

He published a book called “Natural Cures THEY Don’t Want You to Know About.” (Followed by “Weight Loss Secrets THEY Don’t Want You To Know About” and Debt Cures THEY Don’t Want You to Know About.”) With this he hit the mother lode. For one thing he couldn’t be sued for fraud (though various state attorneys general have tried) because he was peddling the written word rather than physical products and was therefore protected by the 1st Amendment. Second he tapped in to that dark streak of paranoia that always exists out there that maintains that the solutions to all of our problems have already been discovered but some dark cabal is keeping it to themselves for their own gain.

None of these books has anything in them except advice readily available in the public domain on how to live a healthy life – Get some exercise, cut down on carbs etc. But the marketing was a thing of genius. Trudeau relentlessly hammered away at the theme that evil people out there (the medical profession was a favorite) were keeping these miracle cures to themselves to keep their pockets lined. If you bought the books you also got a “monthly newsletter” full of more of Trudeau’s “cures” Of course there were no cures but that wasn’t what Trudeau was selling – He was selling paranoia and he made hundreds of millions of dollars In several cases buyers of his books stopped taking chemotherapy to follw some quack “natural” regimen which immediately caused their health to deteriorate.

THAT’S WHAT MR. OBAMA IS DOING – He is the new Kevin Trudeau. His economic nostrums are based on the same mind-games played by Kevin and are just as empty and phony. He is selling a paranoid delusion to those who are always full of the crassest envy and jealousy even if when times were good. It’s brilliant concept but only in the short run. It is also emblematic of the true con-artist. A man who doesn’t care who he harms as long as he gets what he wants.

Obama wants to own you. It’s obscene. If you love liberty that is. But if you love being owned and only want your owner to feed you a little better from other peoples’ gardens, the mightier your owner the righter.

I hate to tear you from partisan bickering and your re-affirming of the petty cynical Hannity/Limbaugh talking points that exist just to score points. But the argument put up by this author is ponderously weak, suggesting that Obama is a bad guy because he wants to steal money from the rich, so we need to vote for a rich guy instead.

I’m no fan of Obama – he deserves to be impeached – but you neo-cons can’t dare go there because the Bush criminals all broke the same laws first and worse. You also can’t go after him for cronyism or pay-for-play, because you have a decade track record of same with plenty of embarrassing jail sentences.

Indeed, Obama has been a great friend to the rich these past three years, bailing out the banks, loaning free money from the Treasury to any rich person with a pen, refusing to prosecute Wall Street crimes, extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and finally only claiming to be a middle class class warrior after protests flared up in the streets over thousands of US cities and the world.

This author wastes our time trying to frame Obama as a Marxist, but is a useful tool trying to convince voters to continue to vote to extend extraordinary tax cuts for the rich. When the Bush cuts were enacted in 2001, citing special need for cuts for the wealthy because they are job creators, it was a theory they might have believed, but by the collapse of the US economy in 2008 and no jobs anywhere in sight, anyone with eyes could see it was a disproven theory at best and a calculated lie at worst.

Now we have years of solid data showing the tax cuts for the rich created no jobs, year after year, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were in power. So Obama is right in his speech, that we must return to sustainable economics, but this is a conservative Republican idea. Typically, when Obama embraces the right idea, these partisan neo-cons would rather trash their own ideas than agree with him.

If you are a taxpaying voter, do whatever the hell you want – I’m not telling you who to vote for. But if you love your children and want to improve this country, look simply at the only thing that ever worked to balance budgets in the modern era, grew the economy, provided jobs and opportunity.

This was the tax policies of the 50s-60s where tax breaks for the vast middle class ensure robust long and short term spending and economic growth and the rest of the money needed to balance the budget is taken from the rich, at rates up to 90% if necessary. Note that no one ever actually pays a rate so high, because the taxation is easily avoided by reinvestment in active businesses.

This is your history, America. Look at it, even if it hurts your desire to believe in the mythology of Reaganomics.

I believe the reference was from the article’s author being “Neo-neocon”. That said, believing that “Neo-neocon” is actually some sort of paleo-neocon and expressing a kneejerk reaction like “all you neo-cons can’t dare…..” makes it tough to read his comment.

“When the Bush cuts were enacted in 2001, citing special need for cuts for the wealthy because they are job creators, it was a theory they might have believed, but by the collapse of the US economy in 2008 and no jobs anywhere in sight, anyone with eyes could see it was a disproven [sic] theory at best and a calculated lie at worst.”

You obviously know nothing about the financial crises and its causes, which caused the collapse of 2008. And I’m sure you never heard of the Housing Bubble, either. After the Bush tax cuts were enacted the unemployment rate dipped to 4.5% in 2007, before the collapse of the finance market.

So which is the biggest failure, Obama’s stimulus or the tax cuts for the rich? Seems safe to say that neither worked. Consistency, foolish or otherwise, would suggest that both policies should be stopped, which gets you back to 4-4-4, baby.

How deliciously ironic that Europe’s experiment in widespread socialism should come unraveled at the same time as Obama reaches the peak of his effort to change America into a socialist worker’s paradise. I wish I could enjoy the irony: alas, I despair that we will achieve the worst of all possible worlds under Obama’s incompetent leadership.

Our focus is totally wrong. Instead of looking at what Obama is saying, analyzing it and beating into the earth, we should be focused on what Obama is doing or not doing. Specifically the capture of the RQ170 spy drone should be looked at closely. By letting the Iranians capture this plane intact, he has handed the Iranians the biggest coup ever given them. They now have direct knowledge of our stealth warfare technology and will undoubtedly use it, and give it to the Russians and Chinese. Obama refused to issue the orders to destroy this plane when it was captured. This act alone is enough to impeach/arrest Obama for treason. He has failed totally his duty to protect and defend this country and its people.

Should we really be so surprised by his comments? I ask this because I recall coming across a similar sentiment when helping my daughters with the Social Studies homework when they were in middle school more than ten years ago. I recall reading in their textbook how FDR’s New Deal policies saved capitalism from its own excesses and continue to do so. Obama is just touting the same line of thinking.

You correctly identify that “Obama repeatedly mentioned this goal of fairness while blurring or ignoring the all-important distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome as a measure of that fairness.” While this is indeed a valid distinction fairness also masks an inherent fuzziness that works to the advantage of (to use one of Obama’s favorite phrases) those who want to expand the concept of fairness to suit their agenda. I would argue that the concept of individual rights gets forgotten in this line of argument. We can argue forever over which definition of fairness we use unless we have a valid concept of individual rights to ground this argument and to settle disagreements over what is “fair.”

I’ll admit that the Left has successfully eroded or expanded the idea of individual rights to justify their desired enlarged of the role of government but it took some mighty verbal acrobatics to do it. For a good discussion of how FDR did this check out Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State by William Voegeli. However if we get sucked into debating definitions of fairness we have already lost the intellectual fight. With individual rights there is some objective standard to which we can repair.

Fairness, like a magician’s sleight of hand, gets us to shift our focus away from the conditions necessary for each individual to live freely and to pursue happiness to the relationship between individuals. In other words Obama and his supporters substitute the concept of individual rights which has an objective basis (if formed properly) to fairness, which can mean whatever one wants it to be. I think is precisely their motive.

While fairness is a valid concept on the social level in terms of how people treat each other in a non-legal context elevating fairness to trump rights and to be a governing political principle is a path fraught with peril.

“Fairness” is basically a childhood sticking point. “It’s not Fair!” has been a pediatric complaint forever, and even three and four tear-olds know how to use, twist, distort the facts with the plaint to manipulate both peers and adults.

My wife and both work full-time jobs and after many years (I’m 45) we together gross just under $300k/yr. So now that my decades of hard work have paid ff I’m now supposed to go to work not to benefit me and my family but to benefit someone else. I have to work to pay someone else’s retirement, put food on someone else’s table, put clothes on someone else’s back, put someone else’s kid through school. How does that not make me a slave or indentured servant? Why work and achieve if our government is just going to confiscate my earnings? I don’t owe anyone anything. I am not my brother’s keeper. It isn’t “fair” to those of us who are Taxed Enough Already to be forced to give up even more of our incomes to benefit someone else.

How about you try to answer the question Eric asks above: “Why work and achieve if our government is just going to confiscate my earnings?”

It’s no small wonder that, in the current economic atmosphere Obama & his administration have created over the last 3 years, so many people with means are just sitting on it instead of investing in this economy by expanding their businesses. It really is a blessing that we have been treated to the ugly display of the entitlement mentality thanks to the OWS demonstrations. Those people represent millions of others who think just the same way but just didn’t show up to be seen with their inappropriate attitudes.

Are you referring to the taxes prior to the tax reductions? Yes it would have been worse but they should never have gotten to that level in the first place. They’re only used to feed parasites.

Thewn you make a sarcastic comment about “O Generous One”. Why?? You have no idea how much he may donate to charity and quite frankly it’s none of your business.

He is correct in that it’s not our job to raise other’s kids; we have our own. However, if he’s referring to “reitrement” without excepting those who’ve paid into the system with a promise of coverage, then he’s wrong. BUT, if they’re excluded, the rest, who haven’t paid deserve nothing. That includes all of the immigrants, illegal and legal, whom people like Carter, Clinton, Obozo, and either Bush have stuck on Medicaid, medicare, or any other social benefit.

And make sure that he continues to tell us that he will travel to all 57 states, and conveniently leave out parts of the constitution when it speaks of endowed by our creator, but do remind us of those in middle America that cling to their guns and religious beliefs.

I liked this article and it is fine for those who are willing to discuss the issues presented. It is however useless for discussion with people who voted Democratic in the last election, since most don’t fit the people identified in the first sentence.

Therefore for presenting these issues now to the voting public, one needs to select some important undefined ideas from the President’s speech and describe how they will really work, making obvious to most persons on the street that the proposed ideas are unfair and hurt him as well as others.

A short boiler plate can begin the pitch. Such as, if everything in the world was meant to be fair, how come blondes have more fun? Modifying people’s attractiveness and resulting fun for purposes of equality, is unlikely to ever happen. In fact anyone who supports this idea should volunteer to be the first to be operated on.

Lets take the President’s idea of making income taxes fair. Last year(?) xx% of people paid no tax at all and xx% of the people who are the lowest earners, paid xx% of the total tax, while the rest of the earners paid the remaining xx% of the tax.

Therefore if the people who pay no taxes can vote for getting things they wish for, and which increases the total amount of taxes needed, the lowest earners, will have to pay more taxes, as well as everyone else. Is that fair? No, people voting for things they do not have to share in paying for is an unsustainable situation that will eventually kill the entire economy for everyone.

So what could the President do to make things fair. He could keep non-taxpaying people from voting for things that raise the need for more taxes, or he could make everyone pay a fair portion of taxes. Then if public demand for benefits raise taxes, every person shares in the pain, as long as there is pre-agreement of all taxpayers on what fair means.

Throwing around terms like fair and fairness without first getting agreement to the rules of what makes something fair and its methods of proof, is demagoguery. If you don’t recognize who a demagogue is, just look for a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and makes promises in order to gain power, such that once in power it is found that none of his promises are working and none actually ever come true.

When Joe the Plumber asked Barack Obama, ”Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the candidate responded with an off-the-cuff answer that rivaled his most infamous gaffes before or since.

It’s not that his response was the equivalent of his “57 states” or his “corpseman” goofs. In fact, it couldn’t be classified as a stupid gaffe at all. It was more a slip of the lip, an unrehearsed confession of his extremist socioeconomic philosophy which would have buried most candidates.

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama answered and added, ”I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Wealth re-distribution and class warfare in which the proletariat, the vast laboring majority, rebels against the bourgeosie, the small minority in control of the means of production, are central to Marxist theory. If that idea rings a bell, it’s because it is also central to the mini-revolution now plaguing the country, the Occupy Wall Street crowd and it’s not coincidental that the president fully supports OWS.

Of course, the claim by demonstrators that they represent the so-called 99% is simplistic since half of that number happen to be part owners of the means of America’s means of production by virtue of being investors in stocks, 401k and 403b plans, and other investment vehicles.

Logic is no more a feature of OWS than it is of Marxism today.

In The Roots of Obama’s Rage, Dinesh D’Souza dismisses the belief that Marxism-socialism is Obama’s principal inspiration and contends it is an anti-colonialist rage, a commitment to leveling the world’s playing field by ending America’s status of a superpower that motivates Obama.

D’Souza rightly feels that Obama inherited both his Marxism-socialism and anti-colonialism views from his father but there is little point in differentiating which is primary to the president’s thinking. Extended another four years, either is sufficient to ending the America as we know it today.